No, I'm just relating his narrow viewpoint to something we can all relate to. If we were to start speaking Audio with some history/religion heads, they would probably laugh and say we're crazy and then go on with their lives, just like we are doing here now. Audio concepts are just as farfetched and convoluted as anything mentioned in this thread or in any Ancient Egypt theory or text I've ever heard of, yet we all believe it. Why? What's the difference?
Measurability. If you say that a certain device enhances the harmonics of a sound, and I can both hear that and see it on an analyzer, I have no reason to dispute it. I could show the same thing to someone whom is not into audio and they could reproduce those findings.
If you state the same thing and I can't hear nor see it, I have a good reason to second-guess your statement. If you then proceed to show me your measurements and how you got them, you may very well convince me that I was just doing things wrong.
However, my experience with theories similar to the ones mentioned in this thread is that they are rarely supported well by reproducable measurements. Or even worse, they state that things are "unmeasurable".
That is the thing. It has nothing to do with being open-minded. It is just critical judgement of empirical evidence. If one theory works with simple facts we already know, and another theory needs several factors that have not or cannot be proven, the first theory is just a lot more plausible. Mind you, I'm not saying this means theory A is 100% true. As soon as you can prove that the second theory fits better without any gaping holes, every reasonable person will accept it. But the burden of proof is on the person that makes the statement.
An analogy I often hear in these discussions is that of the discovery of electricity. You know the one I'm sure. It is a major example of something that sounds hard to believe at first turning out to be true in the end. But it is also an example of my point.
The people that thought electricity was a real thing found a way to measure and manipulate it, and so the world accepted it as truth.
If you think you have good reasons to assume something is true, find a way to prove it. If it can't be measured yet, try to discover a tool for it. Until then, expect people to be skeptical. It is only fair to demand this process, because it has been required for every other major discovery in history. Being open-minded shouldn't mean that you accept random information as facts. All it means is that you accept that what you know may be wrong or incomplete.
Btw, I know absolutely nothing about this specific theme. These are just my personal opinions on similar discussions.
